mersenneforum.org Paterson primes
 Register FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

 2022-11-07, 16:32 #1 henryzz Just call me Henry     "David" Sep 2007 Liverpool (GMT/BST) 37·163 Posts Paterson primes I have just watched Numberphile's video on a class of primes that a school friend of 3Blue1Brown came up with. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhObLT1Lrfo This friend noticed that if you take a prime, convert it to base 4 and then interpret it in base 10 then it would be prime. Given his lack of a computer he was unable to find a counter example; however, as you search higher there are many (strong law of small numbers). This algorithm relies on the fact that this base conversion from prime numbers excludes the factors 2, 3 and 5 from the resulting numbers. Below are a few questions that came up in the comments: Are there infinitely many "Paterson primes"? How exactly does the ratio between "Paterson primes" and "non-Paterson primes" behave for larger and larger numbers? Is there a longest consecutive run of "Paterson primes"? So, could it theoretically be all "Paterson primes" after a certain number? If so, from what number on is that? If not (which is probably more likely), what's the longest consecutive run of "Paterson primes" we know of? Are there a better selection of bases other than interpretting a base 4 prime as base 10 that exclude more factors and result in a higher number of primes? (24 to 5634 is good according to comments)
 2022-11-07, 17:40 #2 science_man_88     "Forget I exist" Jul 2009 Dartmouth NS 2×3×23×61 Posts Well 4 and 10's remainder on division by 6 is the same so really comes down to primes that have only 1,2,3,0 in the digits of course.
 2022-11-08, 14:14 #3 Dr Sardonicus     Feb 2017 Nowhere 2×11×283 Posts I noticed a run of 9 "non-Paterson" primes less than 1000: 853 31111 [53, 1; 587, 1] 857 31121 prime 859 31123 prime 863 31133 [163, 1; 191, 1] 877 31231 prime 881 31301 [113, 1; 277, 1] 883 31303 [23, 1; 1361, 1] 887 31313 [173, 1; 181, 1] 907 32023 [31, 1; 1033, 1] 911 32033 [103, 1; 311, 1] 919 32113 [17, 1; 1889, 1] 929 32201 [13, 1; 2477, 1] 937 32221 [7, 1; 4603, 1] 941 32231 [167, 1; 193, 1] 947 32303 prime 953 32321 prime 967 33013 prime 971 33023 prime 977 33101 [79, 1; 419, 1] 983 33113 prime 991 33133 [17, 1; 1949, 1] 997 33211 prime It would appear they thin out as the numbers get bigger. Here are the proportions of "Paterson primes" among primes up to 10^k, k = 2 to 8. 100 0.80000000000000000000000000000000000000 1000 0.55952380952380952380952380952380952381 10000 0.37347436940602115541090317331163547600 100000 0.25823603002502085070892410341951626355 1000000 0.20712629621136844250808937807332670896 10000000 0.17486107746407876264522351744487863745 100000000 0.14798813841295297802378045129225169684
 2022-11-08, 17:12 #4 science_man_88     "Forget I exist" Jul 2009 Dartmouth NS 20E216 Posts forvec(x=[[0,3],[0,3],[0,3],[0,3],[0,3],[0,3],[0,3],[0,3]],if(isprime(fromdigits(x,4)),print(fromdigits(x,4))))
2022-11-08, 17:21   #5
R. Gerbicz

"Robert Gerbicz"
Oct 2005
Hungary

22×13×31 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus It would appear they thin out as the numbers get bigger. Here are the proportions of "Paterson primes" among primes up to 10^k, k = 2 to 8. 100 0.80000000000000000000000000000000000000 1000 0.55952380952380952380952380952380952381 10000 0.37347436940602115541090317331163547600 100000 0.25823603002502085070892410341951626355 1000000 0.20712629621136844250808937807332670896 10000000 0.17486107746407876264522351744487863745 100000000 0.14798813841295297802378045129225169684
The ratio should be close to const/k.

2022-11-08, 19:56   #6
kriesel

"TF79LL86GIMPS96gpu17"
Mar 2017
US midwest

2·29·127 Posts

From the limited data it appears the asymptotic const ~ 1.
Attached Files
 paterson primes trend.pdf (16.1 KB, 41 views)

2022-11-10, 14:14   #7
Dr Sardonicus

Feb 2017
Nowhere

2×11×283 Posts

Quote:
 Originally Posted by R. Gerbicz The ratio should be close to const/k.
Basically an extra factor of log(x) in the denominator of the asymptotic formula. Sounds reasonable.

I was however unable to conform the question to the Prime k-tuple or Bateman-Horn conjectures. It is thus not clear to me why it "should" be asymptotically proportional to 1/k.

I note that it is in fact a case of "multibase primes." If f(x) is a non-zero polynomial with coefficients in {0,1,2,3}, and f(4) = p, a prime, we want f(10) = N also to be prime. I note that for large p, log(N)/log(p) = 1.66, approximately [limiting value log(10)/log(4)].

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post emily Math 35 2022-12-21 16:32 carpetpool Miscellaneous Math 4 2022-07-14 02:29 mart_r Prime Gap Searches 14 2020-06-30 12:42 Mickey1 Miscellaneous Math 1 2013-05-30 12:32 troels munkner Miscellaneous Math 4 2006-06-02 08:35

All times are UTC. The time now is 13:49.

Sun Feb 5 13:49:48 UTC 2023 up 171 days, 11:18, 1 user, load averages: 1.12, 0.86, 0.78